Does Language Shape How We View the World?

In the 1930s, Benjamin Lee Whorf discovered that the Native American language Hopi had no time or tense markers—no word for later or before, no grammar to refer to past or future events or actions. He suggested that, because of this, the Hopi people do not experience time as we do. For the Hopi, events don’t take place in the past or in the future, they recur, and Whorf posited that the cyclical view of time in Hopi cosmology was a result of this aspect of their language.

Whorf, it turns out, was wrong. Hopi does mark tense. But his work on Hopi was part of what would become known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It was not a new idea, but Whorf stated its relativistic principles forcefully. In his words, language “builds the house” of our “consciousness.”

You have probably come across Whorfianism in some form or another. For example, perhaps someone has argued that because Eskimos have 50 words for snow and 70 words for ice, they experience these phenomena differently than non-Eskimos; or that because Russian has no word for blue alone (it has one for light blue and one for dark blue), Russians experience art differently than non-Russians; or that because in the Amazon language Tuyuca there are built-in evidential markers (i.e., “I heard…” or “…it is said”), the Tuyuca are particularly critical of what others say and do.

McWhorter argues (convincingly in my view) that language has only a minor effect on cognition and no effect on a person’s view of the world—that is, in this case, how humans understand time, causality, color, space, and so forth.

Whorfianism is a bold proposition regarding the power of language. Yet, as McWhorter notes, much of language is rather inconsequential with respect to how and what we think. For example, in English we use both adjectives of distance and quantity to modify time (“long time” and “a lot of time”) but the Spanish use mostly adjectives of quantity (“mucho tiempo”). Does this mean that the Spanish think of time as stuff and the English think of it primarily as a distance, and that this has some real effect on how the Spanish or English see the world? Unlikely. In French, it is as it is English, and Italian is like the Spanish. What common trait do Italians and Spanish (or the French and English) share because of how they refer to time? There is none.

Furthermore, if a language shapes our view of the world, are we able to think of things for which we have no word? According to the popularized version of Sapir-Whorf, the answer would have to be no, but clearly we are able to do so. McWhorter writes that Greek has no evidential markers like in Tuyuca. Does that mean Greeks can’t evaluate the words or actions of others critically? In Swedish, there is no word for “wipe.” In English, there is no word for the French “frileux.” But certainly the Swedes know what it means to wipe one’s nose and the English know what it is to be susceptible to the cold. Conversely, tribes that have never used clothes, unsurprisingly have no words for hat, robe or shirt. But it is not the lack of these words that has prevented these people from thinking in terms of dress, but the lack of clothes that has made words for them unnecessary.

It’s worth pointing out that McWhorter’s argument here is not so much against contemporary studies of the effect of language on cognition, which are carefully structured to avoid overreaching, as it is against the spin on these studies in the press. Though McWhorter calls into question the importance of such studies, too.

It has been shown, for example, that Russians are indeed quicker than non-Russian speakers at differentiating between light blue and dark blue because they have specific words for these two colors. How much faster? One hundred and twenty-four milliseconds, or one tenth of a second faster. Does this count as language shaping thought? It’s clear enough that having words for particular phenomena makes it easier to identify those phenomena, and so language would seem to have some effect on thought, but to call it “shaping” is to overstate the effect.

So if language does not change how we view the world, why do languages develop in the way they do? While it’s not the most exciting answer, according to McWhorter, there is no reason. Language, he writes, is random: “Worldwide, chance is, itself, the only real pattern evident in the link between languages and what their speakers are like.”

Cultures differ greatly, of course, and exercise a powerful influence on how we see the world, but the grammar of a language is not the same as culture, and McWhorter makes a convincing case for putting at least the popularized form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis out to pasture.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 24 comments

24 Responses to Does Language Shape How We View the World?

But Mr. Mattix, English DOES have words for “light blue,” “dark blue,” and “susceptible to cold.” You and I have just typed them.

One of the most thought-provoking courses I took in college was entitled, simply, “Metaphors” and was taught by George Lakoff. He took us through numerous extended metaphors to explain how, according to his theories, language does tend to shape our view of the world.

Think of marriage, for instance. If you believe that marriage is a partnership, then your spouse is your partner, your home is your headquarters, and so forth. With that kind of outlook, you probably expect that you and your spouse will work together to create a successful enterprise, to solve whatever problems the world throws at you (another metaphor!), and so forth.

Now, if you marry a partner for whom marriage is a battleground, or a financial solution, or a ball and chain, you may wind up unpleasantly surprised down the line by your spouse’s world view. Marriages break up every day over conflicting metaphors.

Pure experience, especially sensory experience, and conceptualization are not the same thing. As far as anyone can tell, blue is blue and cold is cold to any human being. However, any anthropologist or cultural sociologist will tell you that the way people conceptualize their lives and experiences and express them in language varies hugely from one culture to another. Cultural perceptions impact language — this is one reason why it’s just about impossible to accurately and succinctly translate ancient non-European languages into English — and language tends to reinforce how people conceptualize things. So, while the world may look the same in any language, it certainly is not understood or conceptualized the same way in every language.

“It’s worth pointing out that McWhorter’s argument here is not so much against contemporary studies of the effect of language on cognition, which are carefully structured to avoid overreaching, as it is against the spin on these studies in the press. ”

How courageous of him! It’s similar to when Rod finds the dumbest, most over the top statement by a college student to mock. “Look! Look how stupid liberalism is!”

Yes, the stupid version of liberalism is stupid. The stupid version of conservatism is stupid. The stupid versions of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, evolutionary psychology, and Christianity are all very stupid.

When you decide to argue with something stupid, the limit on how insightful your argument can be is just above stupid. Is that what you’re shooting for? Do you want to make this blog the intellectual equivalent of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition? That’s what I frequently get when I make the mistake of clicking on Prufock.

I think you can make a strong case that Western philosophy took centuries to dig out of the errors caused by the fact that classical Greek had no distinction between the existential “is” (‘there is an apple’) and the predicate “is” (‘the apple is red’). The error was noticed when translating Plato and Aristotle into Latin and Arabic, but it still has lingering effects.

Classical Chinese, on the other hand, properly distinguished between the various shades of “is” but had a different confusion with “is” and “ought to be,” which led them down different blind alleys.

If I may riff on Carl’s above post, I think he is hitting on something that Prufrock misses. The problem is not conceptualizing but articulating. If a concept in language A can be stated in one word, but requires several in language B, it simply does not communicate as easily from one person to another.
Prufrock even gives this a backhanded acknowledgement, in the “blue study”. Here the test showed a reaction time difference was 1/8 of a second. For something as simple as this, 1/8 of a second is a lot of time inside the brain.

Carl’s point is a good one; even if language doesn’t affect individual cognition, culture and science are iterative and collaborative. If we can all conceive of the same ideas, but we can only accurately express some of them, that seems virtually guaranteed to shape culture over time.

It may not be a good analogy, but instead of a house, I think of language as an operating system with things like religion and politics being subprograms.

My nephew just turned two. I see the progress in his vocabulary almost daily, and I’m interested by this question so I pay close attention to his use of past and present tense. If he goes to his grandparents for a few days, I’ll ask him about it when he gets back and until very recently it didn’t compute and you would get a blank stare because he lives totally in the moment. That being said. I would say his ability to remember and talk about the future and the past has gone hand in hand with his development of the language skills necessary to communicate those ideas.

All of this does not indicate to me that it’s possible for some far removed culture to develop without time markers and not because human culture is universal, but because man (and woman) are defined by our evolved brain capacity that makes our survival depends on our ability to plan. To use the system 1 part of the brain is to live in the moment, to be creative, and to be happy like my nephew, but it is not possible, no matter how simple a people to sustain human life without system 2 thinking and awareness of time.

It’s interesting what you’re saying about an Eskimo’s 70 words for snow, but I wonder how more abstract concepts of religion and politics are shaped by language.

Bunk. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis value is not so much on the tangible, I understand clothes inspite of having no specific word for the target object. That’s a rather simplistic application. The real value of the theory are demonstrated in understanding abstract concepts of meaning. It’s not that eskimos have no word for snow, but rather that their world view is one of some preciseness reflected in their language in regards to snow. Absolutely for the child learning that language it’s use shapes that child’s view of the world and their place in it.

Take for example the first time a child says ‘no’, to parents. That no has established a new understanding of self as independent being. That ‘no’ now proceeds to shape a new relationship between child and everyone else. Ever see a parent respond to a child’s ‘no’ upon being instructed to do such and such — shock. No is for parents and parental control over child. On that day of ‘no’ the nature of relationship between parent and child is changed. That ‘no’ has forged something new.

The veracity of this challenge is rebuffed in short order in common experience. We generally tell people to think, to speak, to behave (nonverbal communication) in a manner that is positive with a clear belief that a positive language will reinforce positive results. Well positive language is designed to shape reality and is there anyone here who does not acknowledge the power of such language to shape environment?

Good greif, every nation creates realities for its citizens as to what constitutes membership. If you english the reality of being English (British) is shaped by how you speak the language.

The power of Sapir-Whorf lies not in the literal as described above rendering language random — as if.
It rests in the very practical use of language to create, distort or manipulate, perhaps manage reality. It is not absolute. It is not a snap one’s fingers tool.

But does language shape reality? One only examine the language used to advance social change.

Marriage is just a legal contract between two people

If I feel it must be true (part of sexual harrassment mantra)

Black people who embrace the ‘n’- word for the purpose of establishing a new camraderie with each other and protest. Creating an entirely new paradigm of relationships.

Does language shape reality? Go home this evening and every night for the next month, tell your wife or husband.”Every day in every way — you make my life sweeter. Don’t ever let the clouds cause to forget.”

Harry Chapin brings what we accept as a truth to light in a song called “Bummer.” All about how we create the people we desire our children to be — shaping their reality, that they mimic and reinforce for themselves, unless some new language intervenes, replacing that old ‘self talk.’

I was so excited when I read the title. It is so rare that the language and linguistic theory is presented in forums unrelated to the fields, only to discover that the challenge is vested in something as superficial as well, everyone has language therefore the value of language in shaping society doesn’t really exist.

As for clothing and reality —

Stand up in any western group and say the word,
“burqa’. That word has shaped political discussion in wholly new modes since 9/11.

If you ask me to ignore what happens on the ground, I have but one response — ‘no.’

My first response to the fact that Russians don’t have a common word for “blue” is that English is similar, in that “red” and “pink” are not the same. Arguably, “brown” and “tan” are the same. I wonder if English speakers are a bit quicker about red and pink than speakers of other languages, as Russians are of blue.

I’m inclined to agree with those who say that a radical distinction must be made between the tangible and non-tangible. The trouble is, it’s a chicken-or-egg question: did cultures develop differently because of language, or language due to culture? Probably some of each, but then, how much of each? We’ll likely never know the full answer, but it may be diverting to guess at and to argue over.

“Probably some of each, but then, how much of each? We’ll likely never know the full answer, but it may be diverting to guess at and to argue over.”

Well,

that is a different question. And there are discussions about whether language shapes environment or environment shapes language. I think one could easily make the case that they occurred simultaneously and and are not mutually competitive, though some might challenge that.

But I am not sure one could make a serious case that it just doesn’t play out, based on the examples presented.

(I would have to read the book, which means I have to step back from my whine as the case is in the book, not merely a synopsis, and my not having read it may place my comments in undue bias perspective..)

Are those who are trying to debunk the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis bilingual? If they don’t have the experience of trying to think in two very different languages I would take all their proofs with a very large grain of salt.

Based on my experience with languages, there definitely are differences. I end up thinking in different languages depending on which language is the most efficient at the vocabulary in which I need to formulate concepts. So if I’m working on deriving an engineering process for manufacturing, I’m going to think in Japanese because Japanese has the vocabulary defining the different steps (which English doesn’t.)

More recent scientific advances should emphasize how
neurobiology and culture cause Conceptualized Reality
to “cluster” or “precipitate” via linguistic *ontologies*
that co-evolve with culture.

As one prominent example, the trivialization and simplistic
polarization of Talk Radio economically rewards certain cultural actors,
which favors the spread of their message categories (ontology),
which shapes the current evolution of language in America.

Any half-competent political hack understands the importance
of *Framing* a situation (or opponent) via Language.

Even “hard-science” climate change experts understand
that “soft-science” Framing of their findings (“Messaging”)
is crucial to the well-being of humanity.

But does Language alter and re-shape Reality?

Absolutely: language alters and re-shapes social psychology,
just as language is altering and re-shaping our physical climate.

Complex society has complex view about the world .The world is understood through the thought communicated through spoken word . The same word or counterpart will not be found in less sophisticated world. Trying to impart the more subtle and complex version of the view of the world to the less developed will have to be through generation of word,use of old word,approximation of related meaning with the existing word . In the process ,the word and the language wil change the understanding of the world.

“The world is understood through the thought communicated through spoken word.”

I once wrote a paper on this question. Its focus was on the distinction between humans and animals which generally revolves around to beliefs. Only humans use complex language symbols and assign them to new concepts and a projection of self in time and space, and that only humans communicate or respond to the world in a reflective self

I think both are highly overstated and may be completely false.

If you have ever had a dog, then you have enjoyed the process of playing with that furry rascal. Animals who play in this manner demonstrate an uncanny ability to fool another. That ability of tricking is a clear sign of critical analysis by that animal. You are face to face with your furry pal. His tongue is out and his tail wags. You have backed into a corner against the fence. The animal freezes as you advance assured of the catch. Its head and eyes focus left. You are ready, as he has given his direction of escape away. Bang, he shoots right and there you are a muss and ‘afooled’ by his ability to project and image of self in one direction which you fully buy, but move wholly in another.

That is critical thinking. The same critical thinking exhibited by humans at play. How complex such thinking is defined by humans who are not dogs or dolphins, who have been known to come to assistance of humans, swim along side humans — the complexity of other beings as to language given the vast array of animal communication makes it a tough call as to intelligence as it relates communication and understanding of self.